Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
studley? moving along, the emails that miss herrick identified are presumptively public records. and so mr. st. croix has to identify any particular exemption that you may now be attempting to rely on. there is nothing in the charter as miss herrick admits that exempts those emails. they are emails. they are not part of the investigative file. second, the non-internal emails, which miss herrick wrongly claims are confidential under section f1.110b are not, in fact, covered by that section. although she underlined the operative description of the confidential documents, the word "communications" or any word that would describe an email is missing. under the constitutional requirements for public access, these statutes must be read narrowly. thus, the description of what is confidential can't be expanded to cover communications; which are a completely animal in the investigative file, which was the subject of my complaint. those should also be disclosable, unless otherwise exempt and once an investigation is closed i maintain it becomes a public record and the entire file needs to be releas
. based on the memo that i have seen in the public file from miss herrick, i agree that those records that are part of the investigation, study, audit or other report from the controller's office are confidential under charter section f1.110 and those records of the commission that are pertinent to an investigation are confidential under charter section c3-699.13. however, miss herrick identified three pages' of emails that don't fall into either of those categories, in her opinion. and are therefore subject to disclosure. this is obviously a complicated analysis looking at state law, the charter, and the sunshine ordinance. in this case i believe the sunshine ordinance is trumped by these two charter provisions that make certain records confidential and to the extent what that they are confidential, they are confidential under evidence code second, 1040 and not subject to disclosure. again to the extent that these three pages don't fall into those categories, i believe they are subject to disclosure in a redacted fashion. >> that is not what the sotf ruled >> mr. shaw, please. you
fashion. >> my view of this matter is that as redacted, i think miss herrick is correct that the information can be publicly disclosed. now i'm not sure how enlightening or satisfying the redacted information -- the redacted version will be. it appears that the information that was redacted relates to communications between the commission and the controller's office, which we previously determined were covered by this privilege as part of the investigative file. so i don't think miss herrick was making any additional determinations beyond what she had initially recommended, and that we had earlierly decided on october 22nd. i think she simply is enforcing that view and decision by redacting the portions that were by our prior determination. so that is my understanding of what happened here. >> okay. and that it was privileged as part of the ethics commission investigation or as part of the controller's investigation? >> well, i think we -- mr. givner, correct me if i'm wrong, i think we determined that both are. i think these emails may have been as part of our f
the next item on the agenda is discussion and possible action on reports submitted by lisa herrick formerly of the san jose city attorney's office. as you will recall and was referenced previously, on october 22, 2012 we held a hearing on this matter relating to ethics complaints brought by mr. shaw. we also reviewed and considered paper submitted by mr. shaw and heard argument from mr. shaw on the matter. during that hearing, we asked miss herrick to review a number of determination if they should be disclosed. she subsequently conducted the review and identified set of emails that she believes should be produced in redacted form. so this item agenda is then to discuss whether those emails should be produced as redacted, and if so, whether that has resulted in a willful violation of the sunshine ordinance by the executive director? any comments from the commissioners on this matter? >> do i not get a five-minute rebuttal on this? through the discretion of the chair? >> mr. met shah i will give you a little bit of extra time during public comment, but i would like to hear from th
decided and said at the meeting, but with respect to internal communications what miss herrick appears to be saying here, if you redact the confidential portions, i.e., the portions that relate to the investigation, the fact of the internal communication could be disclosable. again, i think i shared my view we should follow miss herrick's recommendation to produce the redacted document. with respect to whether this is a willful violation of the sunshine ordinance, i do not think it is. and the reason is as follows: this was part of the file. it's been heavily redacted as a result of containing confidential information that is protected. and i think it was right to withhold the document. mr. givner, what is our ability and/or our requirements with respect to redacting and producing documents? >> point of order. >> that would be otherwise-- >> through the chair, point of order, i could have sworn that the agenda for tonight said you would arrive at making one decision before you began evaluating whether it's willful. so before reaching your first step appears ethically wrong. >> mr
in order. let's make the motion on whether or not to release the three pages as redacted by miss herrick. is there such a motion? >> so moved. to release the documents as redacted by miss herrick. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? hearing none, that motion passes and the record should be produced as redacted. as a result of having produced -- agreed to produces the record as redacted, i think we should address the issue of whether the failure to release these documents was a willful violation of the sunshine ordinance. i think i have given my view that in light of the effort we made to review all of these documents, the discussion we had and arguments we heard with respect to this file and these records, that i certainly don't see willfulness here myself. i will open it up to my fellow commissioners to share whatever views that they have on the matter and we'll take public comment and go from there. >> i agree, i don't find a willful violation given the amount of time we had to spend in analyzing the issue ourselves. it was borderline, i think. >> i would be interes
would categorize as so severe as to be virtually encompassing the entire document. because miss herrick conducted this investigation for us, because i didn't find the information that was not redacted to be privileged, i think in this instance, production is appropriate. but i certainly do not fault the commission for not producing a document in this form, which the public can evaluate it once they see it, but i think they will find it to be not particularly useful as a publicly disclosed document. thank you, mr. st. croix. >> is there a motion with respect to whether we should find the failure to release these three documents in redacted form to be a willful violation of the sunshine ordinance? >> i move that we find that the failure to release these documents was not a willful failure -- a willful violation of the sunshine ordinance. >> is there a second? >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? motion passed. i also want to say in response it to a number of the members of the public that i understand the frustration with not being able to see what we get to see, what
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)